Oct 9 - The real vote on the Aviation Reform Group

[Whiskery]

****su - you have no idea of my rationale, so I'll put it another way. Just for you !

THIS is why I shall NOT be voting for Labour.


Pharcarnell - no I don't. I am merely reading what achievements the Libs have made during their term in office and they will get my vote because of THAT record.

Oh - and I do agree with your "hand on the whip" theory.

[Woomera]

OK, OK, Children!! I've been scrutinising this thread with my scrute eye!

This has obviously turned into a political thread - what else could one expect in Australia? I'll let this thread run, but:

1. No links to, or images from political sites.
2. Stick to real - and preferably aviation/transport related issues.

There will be more than enough political cr@p on radio and TV over the next month - don't need it in PPRuNe as well!!

Those who don't play by the rules may find it very difficult to post in this thread for a week or so........

Woomera

[Chronic Snoozer]

S-T

Mike Moore eat your heart out.

(source:tonykevin.com):

Don't tell me you believe these political sites?

I still don't see aviation reform as a burning issue in any of these platforms. Shame. What is a change of government going to bring as far as aviation reform/improvement goes?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Chronic,

Is it that you wish to dispute the facts presented, or just shoot the messenger?

What was presented in my post is available from a number of sources all referenced to mainstream media and committee reports. (I will post them all here if you wish.)

Or do you only choose to believe what suits your point of view?

Do I believe political sites? Not blindly - No. But when a sufficient amount of evidence in produced time and time again thats says it looks, walks and sounds like a duck......

Its why I actually really like elections - especially in Australia where voting is compulsory. Because of that it forces people who are a-political or just apathetic to think about the issues, and look at the evidence.

[dingo084]

Day one of the election period and I am SICK of it already.

I sincerely hope that so called professional people DO NOT believe anything said on a site like this one will have any effect on anything save the posters inner warm feeling.

I'd rather be flying

ding

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Gee. Am I glad we live in a democracy where free speech is not only condoned but actively supported. Imagine what it would have been like if the target of your bile was Uncle Sadam instead of Uncle Sam.

On October 9 make your vote count. Remember that no matter who wins, we deserve the government we voted for.

VOTE 1 None of the Above

Mark

PS Agree with RFG. However, I must come clean. I was a pre/post 75 RAAF ATC/QAIRTC cadet. I too have a long memory.

[Chronic Snoozer]

****SU-TONKA

Q1. Just the way the facts are presented, hence the MM comparison. I've no bone to pick with your point of view, I just don't feel quite so hostile toward the incumbent government. Thats not to say, as I have previously indicated, I don't get thoroughly annoyed being spoken to like a lowest common denominator by my PM.

Q2. Just as the media butchers aviation reporting, (hope that suffices Woomera as far as aviation referencing) so too the media sensationalises what it sees are the 'issues', whether we agree or not. Therefore before developing my point of view based on my beliefs, I need to believe the right 'facts'. Crikey hasn't this whole 'believe' thing gotten us into a lot of trouble?

The points you have raised are worthy of debate, I don't think the answers to the questions raised are simple. I would hazard to guess the goverment has a lot of support on asylum seekers issues among the silent electorate. It is an issue all over the world and I have seen a little of it here and there, particularly what works and what doesn't. They are bloody difficult decisions and the government will win friends and make enemies because of them.

If you visit Mike Moore's site, and those that counter his, it just ends up being a confusing game of my truth/your truth. Elections are fought like that unfortunately. I prefer to take the wider view and whilst I certainly don't agree with the government's policies in all areas, the litmus test says that Australia is in pretty good shape. Its not by accident, and I don't remember it being this good before. (Remember big picture stuff!)

For me the question is not whether its a duck. Its whether I'd rather have a goose.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Chronic

Is Michael Moore to be demonised because he believes he is being a true patriot and defending values that America is rapidly losing through the stripping of basic civil rights disguised as 'homeland security'? Or has he awoken the sleeping giant of the US - the so called 50% of the 50/50/50 vote (the 50 who don't normally vote)? I don't think Michael Moore should automatically be pigeon-holed as some sort of left-wing nutcase - the only reason he is even heard in the US is because of his success - ironically. At least in Australia it hasn't yet come to needing enormous personal wealth to still have a say. The vote in November will answer the question about how the US really feel about the Bush neo-con agenda. Judging by the protests today in (admittedly Liberal [in the US context] leaning) NYC (which Bloomberg attempted to stymie) the results will see the end of Republican administration for the next term. (Hopefully the second domino after the defeat of Howard in Australia)

Hostile? Yes - apathy doesn't facilitate change. Engagement does. Through engagement comes knowledge and the consequent anger and hostility. (Thoroughly annoyed is an excellent cornerstone for hostility BTW)

Whilst I agree that media reporting, especially on topics one has intimate knowledge of, appears atrocious, it is still incalculably better than what you can get in the US, thanks partly to continued pressure on keeping the cross-media ownership rules in place in Australia. When it comes down to it, we all have to get our information from somewhere - I don't think any media reporting is without some sort of bias (the BBC excepted IMHO). The best you or I can do is absorb as much of the information from a variety of sources and make a balanced judgment.

My balanced judgement: there is overwhelming evidence for me to remain hostile - stay angry, and argue that Howard and his cronies do not possess the integrity to continue to govern Australia.

As has been said here already - governments get voted out not voted in.

This government needs voting out. What I know about the deception, ignorance and obfuscation on Aviation policy from John Anderson alone requires it, if that is indicative of the policy handling capabilities of this administration in the future.

[Chronic Snoozer]

S-T

Let me just say I enjoy reading your point of view. It is provocative. But.....

Is Michael Moore to be demonised because he believes he is being a true patriot and defending values that America is rapidly losing through the stripping of basic civil rights disguised as 'homeland security'? Or has he awoken the sleeping giant of the US - the so called 50% of the 50/50/50 vote (the 50 who don't normally vote)? I don't think Michael Moore should automatically be pigeon-holed as some sort of left-wing nutcase - the only reason he is even heard in the US is because of his success - ironically.

Listen - I never pigeon-holed or passed judgement on MM. He's definitely not a nut-case. MM is unquestionably manipulative with his 'facts'. But hasn't he just given the media-manipulating neo-cons a taste of their own medicine? I say hats off to the guy!

I think it is sad that the electorate is polarising around two so-called sides of politics forcing most of us to choose between bad and not-so-bad. Or put another way, the grass on both sides of the fence is brown, which side do you want?

[Transition Layer]

There's currently a poll running on http:///www.news.com.au - there's a link on the front page under "Vote - Best PM".

When I last checked, after almost 9000 votes, the lead to Howard was just 8 votes!!! Incredibly close for a poll like that.

TL

[CoodaShooda]

****su
All very good to criticise leadership decisions with the benefit of hindsight. However, the real question is "How would the Opposition have managed these situations had they been in power?"

If you can convince me that Latham, with his populist, policy on the run, backflipping style would have handled things differently or better than stolid Honest (but not really honest) John, then I'd have a preferred winner from this contest.

As it stands, I have lost a lot of respect for Howard but have yet to be convinced that Latham has substance.

Personally I'd like to see an amalgamation of the two front benches, Howard as leader, Costello with Treasury, Rudd with Foreign Affairs, Beazley with Defence and Transport, Latham the Arts.

Better still would be a 'none of the above' box on state election ballot papers, so we can break the power of the parties at the grass roots and try democracy for a change.

Cooda
Wavering between political atheism and anarchy

[Like This - Do That]

Cooda, Mr Beazley run Defence again? Perish the thought. The cabinets in which he served as Defence Minister did plenty of damage to the ADF ...

I've never voted Labor and I've always believed I never would ...but ... I'm between a rock and a hard place as I can't vote Liberal again; this lying manipulative government doesn't deserve it. However my seat is a dark blue ribbon solid safe Liberal seat ('Monty' Ruddock is the member) so what's the point?

When push comes to shove, at the end of the day, I mean, like, yeah no, you know .... neither will buy back the airports, reduce excises on AVGAS, etc, the sort of things that will revive GA. Dems or Greens, no way, they hate aviation. Coalition or Labor? Crappy track record.

I suppose I just have to get cynical and worry about my phone number sized mortgage and vote for someone who will stack the RBA board with communists!

[CoodaShooda]

LT-DT

I really need a 'tongue in cheek' smiley

While I said I'd like to see it, I didn't necessarily mean it would be a good thing for the country.

The amalgamated Cabinet would lead to anarchy much sooner than letting one party/coalition have power.

The cracks in Howard's mantle can only widen and his focus will be on damage control, Costello will be divisive until he can take the top job, both will be fighting off the smooth faced, electorally attractive Rudd who will be distracted by having to work harder to maintain his veneer of capability in a higher profile role, Beasley will hate all of them for preventing him from moving up the ladder over the past few years and Latham will spit the dummy and return to type.


Unfortunately, Aviation, in all forms, hardly registers on the political radar. So regardless of who wins the election, nothing much will change.

I think I'd prefer to see the RBA staffed with practising Muslims. They have interesting views on interest.

[Uncommon Sense]

If you really want to keep this thread on the aviation track of politics, somebody from the 're-elect the poison dwarf party' campaign explain to me how you can vote for them after John Andersons (post parliament suspension) decree to Airservices Australia today to install radar approach facilities at all Class D control towers?

If ever there was a supreme example of incompetent policy on the run from a Dick Smith glove-puppet this would have to take out the gold logie.

My hostility is re-vitalised.

[Andu]

Ask yourself the following questions before you decide how you’ll vote on Oct 9th:

(1) (Bear with me, I think this first question’s relevant.) If the Communist Chinese authorities had not cracked down hard on the Tiananmen Square protestors, (as horrible as that crackdown undoubtedly was), what would be the state of China today? Could the answer be, just possibly, a fragmented nation in a state of anarchy run by a half dozen warlords, (as it was until 1949)?

(2) Bearing your answer to the first question in mind, if John Howard had not cracked down heavily on illegal immigration, (as unpalatable as that crackdown might have been to many Australians), how many more boatloads of high-paying hopefuls would have set out from Indonesia over the last three years?

(3) With Latham in charge, will the boatloads of hopefuls start again? I’d be willing to put money on it.

(4) Does Howard deserve another term? Probably not. But after the “feel good factor” of “teaching that terrible man Howard a lesson” has worn off, is the alternative government going to serve your best interests? God help the country, for I can see another Liverpool Council spreadsheet in the making, but on a national scale, if Latham gets in, and I can’t afford to see my savings go up in smoke again. (Who else can remember paying 17% interest on their mortgage.)

I’m reminded of the old saying that Socialism is like wetting the bed on a very cold night – it’s a lovely warm feeling at first, but it very quickly gets very cold and uncomfortable as the long night progresses.

Look past knee jerk emotions and accept that pragmatic politicians quite frequently have to do unpalatable things in the national interest. Howard might not be Mr Nice Guy, (where Latham is????!!!!), but having lived through the Whitlam years, (another member for Werriwa), from pure self interest, I think I’d prefer to live in an Australia governed by Howard’s brand of politics rather than Latham’s.

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself who you’d pick to run your company or your stock portfolio (if you had either) – some nice (!) young hopeful with bu*ger all experience in the field who lost a truck load of money when he tried to run a very small company some years ago, or that not very nice CEO/fund manager who you thought might not lose your money?

Someone has said it before me – it’s a question of the lesser of two evils, and I’d prefer the bloke who tells a few fibs (as they all do) rather than the one who resorts to fisticuffs every time he doesn’t get his own way.

[rtforu]

I think this thread has moved far away from aviation related matters. I'm starting to think that maybe there are a few participants with more than a casual interest in politics!

[buzztart]

LT-DT
__________________________________________________
"However my seat is a dark blue ribbon solid safe Liberal seat ('Monty' Ruddock is the member) so what's the point?"
__________________________________________________

Last election the safe liberal seat of RYAN (BRISBANE WEST) was lost to Labor (after 50 years of liberal majority), after then defence minister John Moore retired under bad smelling circumstances. Sometimes your vote does count.

[Duff Man]

Internet and propoganda

This was touched on in the last election but it becoming much more important this time around. If you saw ABC Lateline last night, you would have heard Amy Walter from The Cook Political Report (a non-partisan, online analysis of US lectoral politics.) mention, in reference to the Republican booing of Michael Moore,

People who go to see the movie really are folks who already feel - they're pretty much against the war.

They're committed already to their cause, a movie like that helps to sort of cement that.

Folks on the other side would never dream about going to see a movie like this.

I think we're seeing that culturally more and more in terms of the kind of TV you watch here, the kind of Internet sites that you now see.

You can insulate yourself in this country more so than ever and I think worldwide you can do this too where you wake up and get your news and your information and never have to listen to one dissenting point of view.

It's not a particularly good thing, I think, but it's certainly become part of our culture.

I'm coming to the conclusion that at least in this campaign, the fairest way to assess each party is to analyse their own primary policy web sites (with a big dose of NaCl) and watch the campaign develop on the least-biased news site in the country.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I agree whole heartedly with Andu on this one.

Politician and economical with the truth go hand in hand.

To pick based on honesty or trust is impossible...you can only vote on who will likely do the least damage.

To suggest that Labor have a good economic record certainly flys in the face of my memory...anyone remember Keatings efforts in 93...and his subsequent raising of indirect taxes?

Who came up with the plan to have a GST first? Keating!!!

I dislike the Libs intensely but Labor does not present a better alternative.

Anyone who thinks Anderson's lack of moral fibre with respect to avaition reform is going to have any effect whatsever on his/Libs re-election chances is playing with themselves.

Unfortunately...or possible fortunately Politicians and the entire democraic political process long ago worked out that the electorate have extremely short attention spans and the vast majority of voters do not vote based upon their understanding of the big issues or various platforms espoused by the elected liars...they vote on personality.

If Latham gets over the line I will be amazed...at the % of Oz voters who appear to be the target audience of 'The Footy Show' and Jerry Springer....in my opinion if the % of the voting population which can be charachterised as 'traditional Labor voters' was removed and only the left wing 'educated elite' were left to vote Labor they'd get less votes than the dopey old fart from Tassy.

I tend to think that as the population of Australia has become wealthier and more afluent (on average) more traditional labor voters have found they no longer agree ideologically with Traditional Labor. Hawke/Keating dragged Labor from being, essentially socialist, to being more center right...Latham/Labor seems now to want to go back to their 'working class' roots.

Modern politicians are more about power and ego than substance...certainly the figurehead Leaders, perhaps not so true of back benchers who may still have altruistic feelings.

I dislike Howard intensely just less intensely than any of the options from either the opposition or his own cabinet.

[Dark Knight]

Green Alternative

Green Alternative

The Greens always provide an appealing alternative political party for one to vote for.
Apart from other fascinating and varied policies their Air Transport Policy makes for interesting reading providing solutions to resolve almost all within the industry.
Why it could even solve the Ansett aftermath, the Qantas/Jet* integration dispute, Sydney airport, etc., etc.

Air Transport Policy
3.15 Recognising that air transport causes considerable environmental damage and is also less fuel efficient by a large factor particularly to transport by rail or by sea, the Australian Greens consider it important that the environmental costs of air transport are taken into account openly and incorporated into the cost of air travel.
3.16 The Australian Greens believe there are many unexplored possibilities for decreasing the dependence on air travel. One of these is the expansion of teleconferencing. In general, the Australian Greens will support measures such as tax incentives which will encourage people to travel less by air.
3.17 The Australian Greens recognise that bad planning in a number of cases has caused housing areas near airports to have an unacceptable noise level and support moves to remedy such mistakes, for example through modifying flying patterns and airport operations and compensating residents in the most affected areas.
Check their website: http://www.greens.org.au/policies/services/transport

DK

>>ps: this could appeal to our fearless aviator, Diccus Smithus, perhaps attracting him as a Green Candidate?